Majorityrights News > Category: Thread Wars

I don’t even like throwing a bone to the Jewish ass-kisser Trump, or candidates from either party (Democrats either, of course) of America’s utterly baked-in and controlled liberal system - wherein “conservatives” only conserve liberalism. However, even if Trump was forced to address this issue to push back against (((Social Media Bias))) in favor of the Democrats in the coming election, and even if the examples of censorship are not those with platforms that I agree with (for example, a pro-life platform excluded from Twitter), the issue and the fact of censorship and “popularity” being manipulated, brought out into open awareness and discussion from underneath the gaslighting by (((social media))) is helpful.

As ethnonationalists, you may not like the examples of people and issues censored.

On the other hand, just as raising the issue of censorship itself provides some daylight for our concerns, so too the intersectionality that a David Horowitz experiences in his example of social media censorship provides some grounds for us to seize upon. Yes, Horowitz has concerns for intersectionality against (((his interests))) in mind, ultimately (no small matter, he’s not “one of us and on our side”); nevertheless, he’s the one who spilled significant beans on the who, what, how of Cultural Marxism/Political Correctness that allowed William Lind to articulate the matter so well for purposes of our ethnonationalist critique and increased freedom from its voodoo.

Tulsi Gabbard sounds off on ‘clear bias’ during her debate

Trump hosts conservative social media personalities at White House

Fox News
President Trump’s White House summit aims to air our grievances over political bias on social media platforms. Invitees are mostly comprised of prominent, and sometimes controversial, online right-wing pundits. #FoxNewsLive #FoxNews

Audio of Part 3

Hitler and Nazism were Not White Nationalism, Part 3

Thus we have established a first principle of this discourse, a positive tautology that the World Wars are history, the people of today are not to blame and should not be subject to the collective punishment of losing their peoplehood and corresponding nations.

There is a second principle that we will invoke at this point, one which the internet has provided for in spades, but which White Nationalists have not utilized to anything like its full potential.

That is correctability, the correctability of ideas and understanding through interactive participation, whether through comments or speaking directly to people and engaging correction.

To date, what has been imposed as if correction, has largely been World War II revisionism - which tends to be dishonest excuses and apologetics for Nazi imperialism where not outright recitation of Nazi propaganda that could be falsified rather easily if they cared to do it.

Misrepresentation and omissions of important facts can remain if would-be interlocutors are not of good faith, don’t really want to pursue the truth, though Nazi apologetics usually claim the truth as their mission.

On the other hand, taking interactive correctability for granted and expecting the voices of correction to chime-in has left me susceptible to allow oversights to linger, because many would-be WN, who’ve accepted the rightist identity and its own political correctness will not say “boo” and alert me to oversights, especially when calling attention to these matters will call negative attention and shoot holes in their pro-Hitler/Nazi position.

Graudenz, Kulm, Thorn and Bromberg, a would-be occlusive salient. To the south of those cities, Poznan and Gniezno are the cradle of Polish nationhood.

There is a third and ancillary tautology to be invoked which is that for whatever grievances that either side had of the times, they were more than made up for.

We will apply this as a third tautological principle then, after ‘it’s history and nobody had anything to do with it’, and after correctability, that is, the tautology that for whatever complaints of the time, “they more than made up for it in retaliation.”

We will take a critical perspective on grievances and injustices alleged by the Nazi apologists, such as allegations made against Polish nationals and partisans, since those allegations have tended to go uncorrected within the philoNazistic PC of so called White Nationalism.

But we need to circle back to our second principle at this point, which is interactive correctability and the fact that so called WN has not been acting in good faith to call matters to attention, especially when they would reflect badly on Nazi Germany.

In previous discussions of Hitler’s complaints over where Versailles borders were drawn, I have made the claim that there were really only three cities of significance lost by Germany - Poznan, Bromberg and Thorn and one made neutral, Danzig (made neutral, not Polish, as in something the Poles could unilaterally return to Germany as misinformed Hitler apologists often claim they should have); and there were some village areas in the corridor and near the Versailles established border where Germans were caught in Polish territory, and we must add that there were Poles caught in German territory. But though Danzig was at the time occupied by Germans, it was a historically disputed city and a strategic city for all concerned, thus justifiably deemed neutral by Versailles. Cities to the south of the corridor, such as Poznan, Gniezno and Leszno, should not have been considered anything remotely but Polish.

While it is true that in previous discussions of this issue I had neglected to mention two cities of significance in the Polish corridor which were inhabited by Germans, Graudenz and Kulm , known in Polish as Grudziądz and Chelmno, it does not change the thesis.

First of all, circling to principle three (mis-spoke; it is “principle two”, correctability that is invoked here) again, that the comment section has been open and feedback of good will is expected to correct oversights such as that.

More fundamentally, these cities being under German political jurisdiction would only extend the salient that would be formed by Bromberg and Torun to obstruct and potentially occlude crucial strategic and economic sea access for Poland.

In addition, Graudenz and Klum were formed of brutal Teutonic and Prussian imperialism on cities that were originally Polish.

Finally, it is a history that only provides more examples of the enormous toll that the Nazis took against impositions of Polish patriotism in these areas; invoking principle three, that they more than made up for it.

Thus, it is no wonder that the Hitler redemptionists didn’t particularly care to take me up on my open offer to correct whatever prior oversights of mine…

No, the Hitler redemptionists, in their claim to be after the truth of history, tend to begin history at or about World War I. And of course, Germany was a sheer victim of the rest of the world, from the Schiff’s backing of the Trotskies, to the Balfour Declaration to the Treaty of Versailles.  But really, to do enthnonationalism justice, we need to go further back in history…

Tara McCarthy ♥️@TaraMcCarthy_14 Jul 22
Replying to @MajorityRights

Anyone who talks about the JQ gets shut down. I don’t have a choice.

daniel sienkiewicz‏ @MajorityRights Jul 22
Replying to @TaraMcCarthy_14

It’s not Not talking about the JQ that’s the big problem, it’s going along with their wish to make “The Left” the enemy that is the problem.

In ordinary language, “left” corresponds with unionization of people against elitist bullying and betrayal.

With J’s on top, they cooperate with right wing sellouts to argue that “The left” is the enemy as they don’t want us organizing against them.

What has been called “the Left” by the (((controlled media and academia))) is liberalism as it applies to Whites. It is not a White Left.

(((They)))‘ve associated it with all manner of absurdity as they do not want Whites deploying the concept of unionization.

They do not want us to have the means of accountability and compassion for OUR marginals that would popularize our cause.

They want to say its all about “equality” but White Left ethno-nationalism doesn’t have to mean anything so absurd for us.

It doesn’t mean people can’t be wealthy; or that people who are not contributing as much to the social capital aren’t accountable as well.

It doesn’t deny the reality of race, genetics, science, differing human abilities and limitations..

But we do have some agency and choice, we can unionize as left ethnonationalists to protect ourselves in coordination with other (coalitions of) ethno-nationalists.

Alt Right/Lite is a (((paleocon))) scam to co-opt White reaction into the alienating, manipulable that’s just-the-way-it-isness of the right.

..“that’s just the way it is” - just so happens (((these people))) are on top, its “just nature”.  The problems are being caused by “THE Left” (now that its convenient for the YKW and right wing sellouts in cooperation to say-so).

Illustration: Is “The left” imposing Islam on Indonesia and Turkey? No. Left nationalism’s bitterly opposed to Islam &vis versa

daniel sienkiewicz‏ @MajorityRights Jul 22
Replying to @TaraMcCarthy_14

Whitaker Online, ” 6 June 2017:

Posted by Laura in About Bob, Bob, General on 06/06/2017

Bugsers,

It’s with great sadness that I report Coach passed away in his bed, Saturday afternoon June 3rd, 2017.

His passing is going to leave a hole in so many people’s life. But he has given the world the tools we need to expose this anti-White system and it’s program of white genocide. We will keep on using what he has taught us.

“He left a huge legacy of words and audio, an entire world view way more in line with reality than the official world view.

That legacy lives on. I know he had a lifetime of frustration with people refusing to use the talking points and political strategies he came up with, no matter how devastating they were to the leftist establishment, but he lived long enough to see his methods start to work. His stuff is EVERYWHERE.

I hope he took comfort in that.

He taught us what to do. It’s just a matter of doing it and teaching others. He’s the exception to his own rule that no hero ever made a difference in a war.

This prophecy WILL come true.

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2013/12/02/the-corner-has-been-turned/

We all know what Bob would want us to do.”

Although there is reason to believe that the Bugsers are (((compromised))), and Bob’s mantra and related memes such as “anti-White” were being misused as such, Bob was clearly well meaning - even if a tad naive; nevertheless, it was not only that his heart was in the right place, he actually did have some incisive ideas - e.g., “the greatest generation’ having been beaten into passivity with their ‘you can’t fight city hall’ WWII army training;” and in recognition of the destruction of that passivity, Bob sought to make up for that generation’s passivity by becoming a trainer/memer of a new generation of activists instead - an activism that for his part, was radical enough for him see through the Trump facade after having gone for it initially - that Trump is not in control of his Presidency, but is in fact controlled - while so many “pro-Whites” remain snookered by Trumpism.

My Disqus profile card as of 17 Apr 2017. Follow me, I’m lots of fun.

Introduction

As far as I’m aware, I’ve really made some figures in American White Nationalism upset with my latest two articles, ‘Donald Trump authorises reckless airstrikes against the legitimate government of Syria’, and ‘Silk Road News: First demonstration cargo train departs London for Yiwu, China’. But it doesn’t end there.

‘Armed recon’

It looks like my presence on Disqus comments threads has finally become the target of something resembling a rag-tag opposition. I have to say it took them long enough, given that I’ve been actively and openly voicing my opinions on that platform since Autumn 2015. Some people have now been drawn into mounting a weak and pathetic campaign against me and against Majorityrights.com generally.

Why am I jokingly calling this article ‘armed recon’ in the title? Because it has been kind of like the internet equivalent of that process, in the Vietnam era sense. See this definition:

In simple terms, it means going out there and thrashing around methodically in the brush and then seeing who comes out to shoot at you and what tactics they use while doing so.

That’s basically how all this started. I offer my unvarnished and real opinion, as always, and then I see who agrees and who disagrees. Here’s an example of that:

Disqus / AltRight.com, ‘Trump is Trophy Hunting in North Korea’, 15 Apr 2017:

And another example in a different thread:

Disqus / AltRight.com, ‘Meet Globalist Gary’, 14 Apr 2017:

These are clear stances.

What kind of person—if anyone—might appear out of the brush to tell me that I’m not allowed to hold those opinions because they are dangerous and that I had better sit down and shut my whore mouth immediately?

Well, I hit the jackpot.

Out comes Ted Sallis with an absolutely insane narrative:

Ted Sallis / EGI Notes, ‘Silk Road News: Asian Infiltration of AltRight.com’, 15 Apr 2017:

Apparently I’ve ‘infiltrated’ AltRight.com by simply commenting there like anyone else can do.

Are you surprised? I’m not surprised. After I made the comment about Gary Cohn, things got slightly interesting. One of the figures who seems to be associated with the American White Pride Network (AWPN.net) who was commenting under the name ‘Celestial Time’, began to obliquely defend Gary Cohn and the rest of the Zionist Trump administration. Seriously, that happened. You can read the thread to see how that played out.

In summary: My assertion was that Bob Whitacker’s mantra and the ‘anti-White’ discourse concept had been appropriated by Zionist forces and used as a method for defending Zionists. Their response was to laughably claim that my viewpoint on that was in and of itself an ‘anti-White’ viewpoint.

They say that my anti-Zionism is ‘anti-White’: I fire back

The entire conversation then devolved into a handwringing crybaby session on the part of the AWPN guy, who basically proceeded to redefine ‘anti-White’ to mean any opinion which happens to hurt his feelings, or could be conceivably interpreted by other White people as being hurtful to their feelings.

That’s about as vague as the definition of ‘anti-Semitism’. Incidentally, if they had chosen to use ‘anti-Semitic’ as their accusation toward me rather than ‘anti-White’, it would have made no functional difference because both discourses are being used to defend objectively Zionist outcomes.

So I went with the ‘whisper gently into the megaphone’ approach:

Disqus / AltRight.com, ‘Meet Globalist Gary’, 15 Apr 2017:

I am terrible, aren’t I? Profound butthurt on the part of my opponent ensued. I can’t be given a ‘free pass’ to ‘belittle’ the apparently ‘White’ people who are upset about my comments! I must be held to account!

There is an easy way to understand how that kind of surreal outcome could manifest. You only need to know that Argumentum ad Asiatica is the new Argumentum ad Hitlerum. ‘Anti-White and anti-American’ is the new ‘anti-Semitic’. Up until now, the masters of cultural critique did not have a method for shutting down Asian criticisms of Zionist policies. The rise of Trump as a Zionist, and the affinity that certain pro-White activists have for Trump, means that by some historical accident Zionism is now effectively sheltering under ‘Whiteness’ in the American context.

Anyone who doubts this only needs to watch any of the top trending videos on Rebel Media’s youtube channel, which is controlled by none other than Israeli Zionist Ezra Levant. The trend is absolutely obvious.

Donald Trump card trick

I don’t know if you’ve had fun with this article, but I have.

I once heard about something called the ‘Donald Trump card trick’. It really illustrates how the Donald Trump campaign, as well as the Alt-Right opinion leaders who supported him, have run their operation. Let’s call this trick ‘The Donald’.

Check it out, it goes something like this.

To gain admission to the show, you have to basically mortgage your entire future for a generation or more. Having done that, you are in. You do that first.

So, secondly, they open a perfectly ordinary deck of cards, and you will be shown that they are indeed all different. Let’s say that the campaign is the card trick, and let’s say that the followers and voters have been asked by Trump, to pick a card.

Trump fans the cards out, and he acts like the selection of the cards doesn’t really matter. It’s an old magician’s trick; the selection of the card actually always matters. But you have to be a certain kind of nonchalant if you want to do a force.

And so Trump says, “Pick a card.” And the voters and supporters come together and pick a card and it’s the Jack of Hearts. Trump doesn’t know that. So the Trump campaign takes the card and slides it back into the deck.

Now, don’t forget, it’s the Jack of Hearts. It’s now somewhere in the middle of the deck.

Trump then gives the cards a shuffle while he’s talking. Now, the patter does not matter, Trump can say absolutely anything that pops into his head. Let’s say, “I’ve got a perfectly ordinary deck of cards here, and Mexicans are rapists.”

And then he shuffles a little bit more, and “I still have a perfectly ordinary deck of cards here, and Asian countries are ripping us off on trade via currency manipulation.”

And then he gives them another little shuffle and puts in a little bit more misdirection, like, “I could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and I wouldn’t lose any votes”, and, “She had blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her whatever”, “They are ripping us”, and “We’re going to build a big, beautiful wall.”

And when election time comes, after all this misdirection, all this shuffling, all this handling of the cards, Trump then has the card on top.

Clean-handed, and with great flourish, he produces the card, turns it around and holds it out, and says, “Is this your card?”

And it’s the…

Eight of Spades, not the Jack of Hearts.

Because he’s a fucking idiotic Zionist tool and so are you.

Related Articles:

• Trump and his cyber ‘czar’ Giuliani want to outsource US cybersecurity. Can you guess where-to?
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 14 January 2017.


• Is Donald Trump playing 181 dimensional underwater jenga-chess? (Hint: No.)
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 05 December 2016.


• Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman: Trump Won Thanks To ‘The Jews’
  Posted by DanielS on Monday, 21 November 2016.


• Alt-Right or Alt-Lite? It’s worse than you think.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 18 November 2016.


• Obvious ambush: Donald Trump embraces the Jews, and then opens fire against White Nationalists.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tuesday, 22 March 2016.


• We Told You So: Trump Panders to Israel
  Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 22 March 2016.


• Big Tent quartermasters faced with fresh spate of pro-Jewish pandering from Donald Trump.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wednesday, 16 March 2016.

ASPI - The Strategist, ‘Would a US–China trade war pay dividends to Australia?’, 09 Mar 2017:

Among many other colourful characters, Donald Trump’s cabinet appointments include two protectionist and anti-China hardliners, Robert Lighthizer and Peter Navarro, who sit at the helm of US trade and industry policy. That decision confirms a belligerent change of tack in Sino­–American economic relations. But what are the implications for Australia?

A number of monetary economists, including Saul Eslake, have warned that a potential escalation to a full-blown China–US trade war poses the single biggest economic threat to Australia. That position argues that the already struggling global economy can’t face a superpower trade war, likely to be triggered by the Trump administration at the monetary level, when the RMB/USD exchange rate will reach the unprecedented level of 7 to 1 (it’s currently sitting at around 6.9). Furthermore, a falling Chinese currency combined with protectionist measures in the US will dampen the Chinese economy by way of reduced volumes of exports and higher interest rates that will spread across the Asia–Pacific. According to such reasoning, that could have negative impacts for Australia’s economy; prices for iron ore, coal and natural gas could possibly drop—we’ll know by the middle of the year.

However, it’s questionable that such crisis would be detrimental to Australia. In fact, focusing on monetary dynamics alone fails to capture the role of industrial production and regulatory arrangements in the global supply chain.

On the contrary, after triangulating the trade and industrial data of the US, China and Australia and considering the current trade regulatory framework, there are substantial reasons to argue that Australia is well placed to fill the gaps left by a wrecked US–China trade relationship at the best of its industrial capacity. Australia is indeed one of a handful of countries to have solid free trade agreements in place with both the US and China.

As it currently stands, the annual US–China trade balance is worth over US$600 billion—around the yearly value of Australia’s overall trade volumes.

Australia’s rocks and crops economy—in particular the growing productivity potential of its agricultural and mining sectors—is strong enough to rise above global monetary tensions and falling commodity prices, thanks to rising export volumes to both the US and China. It appears that the harder the two superpowers use their trade relations as leverage in their strategic competition, the harder they’ll need to look for other sources to sustain their industrial production levels and corporate supply chain.

In a trade war scenario, the possible initial hiccups in the global supply chain will likely be short-lived. In fact, let’s consider that about half of US imports are estimated to be made of intra-firm trade, and that protectionist measures from abroad tend to have insignificant effects on the production input of Chinese State-owned firms. Thus, multinational corporations are proven to be particularly adept at   quickly replacing the flows of their industrial production and distribution, as is shown by history.

In other words, in the event of a Sino–American crisis, the major trading actors in both countries will be able and willing to promptly move their business somewhere else.

Thanks to the existing spaghetti bowl of international economic partnerships, Australia is in prime position to be this “somewhere else” for both countries. In fact, Australia is the second largest economy and Sino–American trading partner of the only six countries that have in place free trade agreements with both the US and China, including South Korea, Singapore, Chile, Peru and Costa Rica.

The liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade is a significant case study for Australia in this instance. Australia is the world’s second largest LNG exporter, and is set to become the first by 2020. It exports more than $16 billion a year of LNG and by 2020 the LNG industry is expected to contribute $65 billion to the Australian economy, equating to 3.5% of its GDP. 2016 saw the start of LNG exports from the US and an unprecedented boost of Chinese imports. In a trade war scenario, the US would be locked out of China’s thriving market and thus LNG prices would rise even higher than they already have. With sharply rising production capacity, Australia needs to expand and diversify its customer base to keep the lion’s share of the global LNG market. China’s response to Trump’s trade policy is set to dampen the rise of a   strong emerging competitor of Australia’s highly lucrative LNG industry, and thus open up new commercial frontiers.

The LNG example clearly shows that Australia’s economy would benefit from a contained US–China trade crisis. Nevertheless, should that trade crisis escalate beyond the economy, Australia’s luck may run out.

The Chinese leadership doesn’t hide the fact that promoting international economic integration outside of the US control serves the purpose of carving greater geopolitical autonomy and flexibility in the global decision-making processes. Beside Trump’s trade policy, Xi Jinping’s diplomatic strategy may also speed up the end of the US­–China detente initiated by Nixon and Kissinger in the 1970s. It remains to be seen whether China will also pursue hard-line policies to push the US outside of the Asia–Pacific. In that instance, Australia would be caught between a rock and a hard place.

If the US­–China trade war were to escalate to the geopolitical level, the American order in the Asia–Pacific would enter uncharted waters. For one thing, such an unsavoury development may compel Australia to make a clear choice between trading with China and preserving America’s security patronage.

Giovanni Di Lieto lectures International Trade Law at Monash University.

One of the most interesting things about all this is that while Australia is going to be compelled to make that choice, the choice has essentially already been made through the pattern of trade relationships which Australian politicians have chosen to cultivate.

The only way that Australia would choose the United States in that scenario, would be if Australians decided that they would like to deliberately take a massive economic dive so that they can ‘Make America Great Again’ even though that is not their country, and so that they can avoid being called ‘anti-White’ by the legions of anonymous Alt-Right trolls roaming around on Twitter using Robert Whitacker’s ‘mantra’ on anyone who won’t support the geostrategic and geoeconomic intertests of the United States, the Russian Federation, and Exxonmobil specifically. 

Given that we know that Australians don’t care about America or Russia more than they care about the economic prosperity of their own country, the outcome is already baked into the cake. AFR carried an article last year which can be used to forecast what is likely to happen, and I’ll quote it in full here now:

AFR.com, ‘How our free trade deals are helping Australian companies right now’, 17 Nov 2016 (emphasis added):

Free trade should be embraced, not feared.

It has lifted living standards, grown Australia’s economy and created thousands of jobs.

While it is becoming more popular to denounce globalisation and flirt with protectionism, we cannot turn our back on free trade.

Australia’s economy has withstood global challenges and recorded 25 years of continuous growth because we’re open to the world.   Since Australia’s trade barriers came down, we’ve reaped the rewards.

Trade liberalisation has lifted the income of households by around $4500 a year and boosted the country’s gross domestic product by 2.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent, creating thousands of jobs.

One in five jobs now involve trade-related activities. This will grow as liberalised trade gives our producers, manufacturers and services providers better access to billions of consumers across the globe, not just the 24 million who call Australia home.

However, not everyone sees the value of free trade. Some see it, and the forces of globalisation, as a threat to their standard of living, rather than an opportunity to improve it.

When it comes to free trade, we often hear about the bad but not the good.

The nature of news means the factory closing gets more coverage than the one opening.

Chances are you heard about the Ford plant closing, but not the $800 million Boeing has invested in Australia and the 1200 people who work at their Port Melbourne facility.

You may have heard about Cubbie Station, but not heard that its purchase staved off bankruptcy, and has since seen millions of dollars invested in upgrades of water-saving infrastructure, a doubling of contractors, more workers, and of course, money put into the local economy supporting jobs and local businesses.

Key to attracting investment, jobs

The free trade agreements the Coalition concluded with the North Asian powerhouse economies of China, Japan and Korea are key to attracting investment and creating more local jobs.

The Weilong Grape Wine Company has said the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is the reason it’s planning to build a new plant in Mildura.

This is a story being played out across the country.

Businesses large and small, rural and urban, are taking advantage of the preferential market access the FTAs offer Aussie businesses into the giant, growing markets of North Asia.

Australian Honey Products is building a new factory in Tasmania to meet the demand the trifecta of FTAs has created.

Owner Lindsay Bourke says the free trade agreements have been “wonderful” for  his business. “We know that we are going to grow and it’s enabled us to employ more people, more local people,”  he said.

It is the same story for NSW skincare manufacturer Cherub Rubs, who will have to double the size of their factory. “The free trade agreements with China and Korea really mean an expansion, which means new Australian jobs manufacturing high-quality products,” said Cherub CEO John Lamont.

It is easy to see why the three North Asian FTAs are forecast to create 7,900 jobs this year, according to modelling conducted by the Centre for International Economics.

Australia has a good story when it comes to free trade. In the past three years, net exports accounted for more than half of Australia’s GDP growth.

Exports remain central to sustaining growth and economic prosperity. Last year exports delivered $316 billion to our economy, representing around 19 per cent of GDP.

This underscores the importance of free trade and why it is a key element of the Turnbull Government’s national economic plan.

The Coalition is pursuing an ambitious trade agenda, and more free trade agreements, to ensure our economy keeps growing and creating new jobs.

On Friday I arrive in Peru for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministerial Meeting.

Free trade will be at front of everyone’s mind.

With the future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) looking grim, my ministerial counterparts and I will work to conclude a study on the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), which sets out agreed actions towards a future free trade zone.

We will also work to finalise a services road map, which will help grow Australian services exports in key markets including education, finance and logistics.

More to be done

The Coalition has achieved a lot when it comes to free trade, but there is more to do.

Momentum is building for concluding a free trade agreement with Indonesia, work towards launching free trade agreement negotiations with the European Union continues, we’ve established a working group with the United Kingdom that will scope out the parameters of a future ambitious and comprehensive Australia-UK FTA and we’re continuing to negotiate the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which brings together 16 countries that account for almost half of the world’s population.

The Turnbull government will continue to pursue an ambitious free trade agenda to keep our economy growing and creating more jobs.

Meanwhile Opposition Leader Bill Shorten continues to build the case for Labor’s embrace of more protectionist policies, claiming he will learn the lessons of the US election where it featured heavily.

What Labor doesn’t say though is that by adopting a closed economy mindset, they will close off the investment and jobs flowing from free trade. They’re saying no to Boeing’s $800 million investment in Australia and the Cubbie Station improvements; they’re saying no to businesses like Cherub Rubs and Australian Honey Products building new factories and the many local jobs they will create.

Steven Ciobo is the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment

What’s not to love about all this?

I really think I love Anglo-Saxons. This is going to be fun, isn’t it? 

When Mr. Ciobo spoke of ‘a working group with the United Kingdom that will scope out the parameters of a future ambitious and comprehensive Australia-UK FTA’, he was not joking. That is happening and it is likely going to be another window that the UK will have into the formation of both RCEP and FTAAP, even though technically the UK is not physically in the Indo-Asian region.

I wrote an article several days ago called ‘A view of Brexit from Asia: Britain as a Pacific trading power in the 21st century.’ I chose at that time not to mention the Australian or New Zealand interface at all, but that article’s main point should be viewed as being reinforced by the point I’ve presented in here now.

I have also written an article today called, ‘US Government to build American competitiveness atop socio-economic retrogression and misery.’ It’s crucial to understand that time is of the essence, since the Americans are at the present moment in relative disarray compared to the rest of us. The Americans have not yet tamed and pacified the various economic actors in their own country, they are still working on that, and they also have yet to form a coherent internationalist counter-narrative to the one that is being enunciated by the governments of Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and so on.

Some of you may be mystified by that statement. What do I mean that the Americans don’t have a coherent ‘internationalist counter-narrative’? I mean that while they are capable of explaining and rationalising their own position as a narrowly ‘America first’ position in a way that is pleasing to Americans, they are not able to export that view to regular people anywhere else in a way that would induce any other European-demography country to comply with America’s geoeconomic interests.

After all, if the Alt-Right people are going to careen all over the internet essentially screaming, “put America first ahead of your own country’s interests or be accused of White genocide”, and alternately equally absurdly, “you’re an evil Russophobe who supports White genocide if you invested in BP instead of Exxon”, then they should not expect that they are going to win the sympathy of anyone who is neither American nor Russian.

I want to say to British people, to Australians, to New Zealanders, to Canadians, Commonwealth citizens in general, that you know, it’s been a long time since you’ve taken your own side. This coming phase is going to be a time when it will become possible to do precisely that.

The time is fast approaching when it will be possible to choose neither America nor Russia. You’ll be able to finally choose yourselves and your own geoeconomic interests, and you’ll be able to choose to trade and associate with whoever else in the world you want to trade and associate with.

NYADagbladet, ‘Facebook gets involved in asking users to report on what has heretofore been free opinion,’ 21 Jan 2016:

Illegal speech has always been forbidden on Facebook. And there are also opinions which are classified as “hatred and intolerance.” Now Facebook is taking a hard line against dissent by building a system wherein you can report friends whose opinions are dissident of their party line regarding migrants and their assimilation.

Facebook’s COO, Sheryl Sandberg, yesterday presented its new strategy at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This week it has launched a new project which is called the Initiative for Civil Courage online.

“Civil Courage”

From left, Sasha Havlicek, Gerd Billen, Sheryl Sandberg, Peter Neumann, Anetta Kahane at the launch of the initiative at the World Economic Forum

There is much talk about stopping the IS and terrorism in the social media. But behind the new venture hides also other motives. It is mainly in response to protests flaring-up in social media against the great migration and refugee flows into Europe that the company now intends to take action. The initiative will particularly target Germany, where the protests were at their strongest according to Reuters.

- ‘Hate speech has no place in our society - not even on the Internet, said Sandberg of the new venture.’

Merkel and the German government are a significant party in pushing Facebook to apprehend “hatred and calls for violence.”

Clear illegality has always been forbidden to write and Facebook’s employees censure that sort of continent as soon as it is discovered. However, the company will now focus on detecting users who make “xenophobic remarks,” according to Britain’s “Independent.” It has now engaged media company Bertelsmann to clean up and monitor traffic on the German part of the platform. The company has also set aside a million euro to be allocated to “nonprofit organizations” to help in the effort.

Opinion based reporting

But the really big operation is not launched yet. Facebook will have an opinion reporting system that allows users to alert the company when friends’ opinions start to diverge too much. Then you should be able to flag that they are ‘at risk of being radicalized, “according to IDG.

It is still unclear what the definition of too radical will be, whose posts will be deleted and if it should be decided by a robot or by human judgment.

Markus Andersson

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Here by contrast is Gaurdian coverage:

Guardian, ‘Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg: ‘likes’ can help stop Isis recruiters,’ 20 Jan 2016:

Speaking at Davos, Facebook’s COO said the company believes ‘counterspeech’ by the online community is the best way to combat propaganda

Silicon Valley is now an open combatant in the war against Islamic extremism.

In increasingly brash tones, tech executives are discussing publicly how their companies can help the west stop Islamic State recruiting efforts online. That shift is welcome news in Washington, London and Berlin, but it could also raise questions about American tech firms’ role in the global marketplace of ideas.

Less than two weeks ago, Silicon Valley’s leading executives joined a closed-door meeting with America’s most senior security staff and law enforcement officials to discuss how to combat Isis’s recruiting efforts online. Agents for the terrorist organization have increasingly turned to platforms such as Facebook,

Alphabet’s YouTube and Twitter.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos on 20 January, Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg pointed to one source of inspiration for the digital war against Isis – “a ‘like’ attack”.

She explained a recent effort by German Facebook users to “like” the Facebook page of the neo-Nazi party and then post positive messages on the page.
“What was a page filled with hatred and intolerance was then tolerance and messages of hope,” she said.

Google says Isis must be locked out of the open web.

She then pivoted to Isis and added: “The best thing to speak against recruitment by Isis are the voices of people who were recruited by Isis, understand what the true experience is, have escaped and have come back to tell the truth ... Counter-speech to the speech that is perpetuating hate we think by far is the best answer.”

Speaking separately in London on the same day, Alphabet’s director of Google Ideas, Jared Cohen, talked about efforts to force Isis agents off the public internet.

“It could be where we can see greater short-term wins,” said Cohen, who met with Pope Francis on 15 January along with Alphabet executive chairman Eric Schmidt.

Revealed: White House seeks to enlist Silicon Valley to ‘disrupt radicalization’

US officials, lawmakers and politicians have complained that the companies aren’t doing enough to keep terrorists away from civilians online. Donald Trump famously said last month he wanted to talk to Microsoft founder Bill Gates about “closing the internet up” in some places to stop Isis.

And while tech executives privately were sympathetic, they were often nervous about confronting the issue publicly. The internet, by its nature, is open. Tech firms – rooted in America’s liberal tradition of free speech – are skittish about playing traffic cop about posted content. Sandberg’s and Cohen’s remarks Wednesday suggest those concerns have diminished.

During the national security meeting in San Jose, Silicon Valley executives in the room, including Sandberg and Apple’s Tim Cook, appeared open to the idea of helping Washington combat Isis online.

The Guardian reported at the time that US officials asked Sandberg about Facebook’s technology that allows users to flag friends who are posting suicidal thoughts on the platform.

After Sandberg explained it, tech executives in the room discussed whether a similar system could be developed for flagging social media users showing signs of radicalization.